Mr. Burton. Good morning. A quorum being present, the Committee on Government Reform will come to order. I ask unanimous consent that all Members' and witnesses' written opening statements be included in the record. And without objection so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that all articles, exhibits, and extraneous or tabular material referred to be included in the record. Without objection so ordered.

It's been a little more than 10 years since the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. We've been through eras of Glasnost and Perestroika in Russia. We've seen economic reforms come and go and we've watched the Russian economy come close to collapsing.

The conventional wisdom since the end of the cold war has been that the Russian threat to our national security has evaporated. Some people have gone so far as to say that Russia is now our ally. The purpose of this hearing is to examine that question. Is Russia still a threat to United States interests? Is Russia still an adversary?

I'm very glad that we're able to hold this session here in Los Angeles today. We hold a lot of hearings in Washington, DC. Some of them get covered by the news media; some don't. A lot of what we do in the Capital never gets out beyond the Washington beltway. So when we have a recess period, I think it's a good thing to get out of Washington and give people and local media in other parts of the country some exposure to the congressional process and the issues that are important.

Two weeks ago we held a field hearing in Miami about international drug trafficking. We've held field hearings in my home town of Indianapolis. One of our subcommittees held a field hearing in New York on health care not too long ago. So I think it's good for the committee and good for the people we represent to do this once in a while.

One of the problems with doing field hearings is that not many members of the committee can attend. The 44 members of this committee are from all over the country, and we always have a lot of commitments. So you won't see many members of the committee here today. However, that doesn't take anything away from the importance of this subject at hand. National security and our relationship with Russia are very important issues. By holding this hearing, we're creating a permanent record that every committee member will be able to review. And I want to particularly thank Representative Scarborough who came all the way from Florida to be with us today as well as Congressman Curt Weldon who's from Pennsylvania. Of course Mr. Campbell is here from California, and we appreciate his attendance as well. This is an issue we're going to continue to look at down the road. So I want to thank all of today's witnesses for being here and participating.

Now returning to the question at hand: Is Russia still a threat? One thing we know is that Russia is still conducting espionage against the United States. A lot of people in Washington were shocked when they picked up their newspapers about a month ago and discovered that a Russian spy had bugged the State Department. A spy who is stationed at the Russian Embassy had planted a tiny listening device in a chair in the conference room. It was right down the hall from the Secretary of State's office. The FBI caught him red-handed sitting in his car outside the State Department trying to listen in on a meeting. Nobody has any idea how long that bug was there or what the Russians might have learned. Security is so lax at the State Department that they couldn't tell you today if there are any other listening devices in the building. They're sweeping them right now.

One of our witnesses today is a former Russian intelligence agent, Colonel Stanivlav Lunev. He is the highest ranking GRU officer ever to defect to the United States. The GRU is Russia's premiere military intelligence agency. Colonel Lunev is in the witness protection program and special arrangements have been made to conceal his identity. So I apologize to the media who's here, we'll have to have him come in and be covered up so that his identity is maintained so he won't be in any jeopardy.

Mr. Lunev worked out of the Russian Embassy in Washington for 3\1/2\ years. I had a chance to read Colonel Lunev's testimony when he was before Congressman Weldon's subcommittee in 1998. He said, ``I can say to you very openly and very firmly that Russian intelligence activity against the United States is much more active than it was in the time of the former Soviet Union's existence. It's more active today than it was then.'' That was a year and a half before the State Department incident. It looks to me like Colonel Lunev knows what he's talking about. It makes me wonder if there are more bugs in more conference rooms waiting to be discovered.

It's not really surprising that Russia is still actively spying on us. But how does the Russian Government view us? Have their views changed? Do they consider us a friend or an enemy? They just produced a new national security doctrine. It was signed by President Putin this month. According to one scholar it, ``adopts a tone far more aggressively anti-Western than in the 1997 version.'' The document blames the United States and NATO for trying to dominate the world and states that this is a grave threat to Russian security. So it's very clear that the Russian Government at the highest level still sees us, the United States, as a threat and an enemy.

I recently read a quote from former CIA Director John Deutch. He was testifying in 1998. Here's what he said:

Russia continues to be our top security concern, even without the adversarial relationship of the cold war. Russia still possesses 20,000-plus nuclear weapons. Wide-spread corruption and the absence of honest and accountable internal governmental administrative functions threatens Russia's slow and erratic evolution toward democracy.

One of our witnesses today is Dr. Peter Pry. He was a CIA analyst for many years and he recently wrote a book, ``War Scare: Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink.'' Dr. Pry states that the Russian military and intelligence agencies still take a very hostile view toward the United States. He states that decisionmakers in those agencies still consider us their foremost adversary and that this paranoia is fueled by the growing disparity between our economy and their economy and between our defense capabilities and theirs.

That brings me to one of the issues I'd really like to focus on today. According to Colonel Lunev, a key component of Russia's strategy against the West for decades has been sabotage and assassination. In his previous testimony, he stated that one of his jobs at the Russia Embassy was to collect information about elected leaders in this country. This information would be used to assassinate them in a time of war or crisis.

Another of Colonel Lunev's jobs was to scout out sites where weapons or explosives could be prepositioned. From time to time he would travel to the Shenandoah Valley to photograph areas where ``dead drops'' would be established. Weapons would be placed in these dead drop areas so that in times of crisis Russian agents could come into the country to commit sabotage against power plants, military bases, and communications facilities.

According to Colonel Lunev, part of the Soviet's plan called for the use of, ``portable tactical nuclear devices,'' to be used to commit sabotage against highly protected targets. If has now been widely reported that the Soviet Union manufactured portable briefcase-size nuclear devices that cannot all be accounted for.

Were conventional or nuclear weapons prepositioned in the United States? Colonel Lunev doesn't know if the sites he identified were ever used. However, a second Russian defector says drop sites were established all over the United States and Western Europe. Vasili Mitrokhin was an archivist for the KGB. When he defected to the West he brought with him pages and pages of handwritten notes about KGB activities. He says that for decades the Soviet Union deployed sabotage and intelligence groups whose mission it was to commit assassinations or acts of sabotage in times of crisis or impending war.

In his book, ``The Sword and the Shield,'' he states that drop sites for explosives were scattered all over Western Europe and the United States. They contained everything from communications equipment to handguns to explosives. At one point in his book, he states that a standard arms package to be placed in a drop site would include mines, explosive charges, fuses, and detonators.

Mr. Mitrokhin brought information on the exact locations of several sites in Europe, in Belgium, and Switzerland. Local police found these sites exactly where Mitrokhin said they would be. That's significant because a lot of people tried to pooh-pooh what we're talking about here today but several sites have been located in Europe. They were booby-trapped with explosives. The bombs had to be set off with water cannons before the caches could be opened. Mr. Mitrokhin states that many drop sites were established here in the United States. However, he was not able to smuggle out the locations. He knows that one site was established in Brainerd, MN.

In his book, he also mentions the possibility of drop sites in New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. However, their locations are still a secret. Some people have asked why we're holding this hearing here in Los Angeles, CA. Well, I had a chance to review the hearing transcript from Congressman Weldon's subcommittee on this same subject. It's my understanding that there are many potential targets for Russian sabotage here in California. It's my understanding that Mr. Mitrokhin mentioned California's harbors and naval facilities as primary targets. California is the most populous State in the Nation. If there are hidden caches of explosives in this State, it's very dangerous and very important that we find out where they are. That's something that the people ought to be informed about. That's why we're here.

The key questions before us now are where are these drop sites? Do they still exist? What's in them? Were any of them ever used to store portable nuclear devices as alleged by Colonel Lunev? If there are Russian arms caches hidden around the country with explosives and booby traps, this is a very dangerous situation. One of the things we want to find out today is if the administration has done anything to find out where these sites are or if they still exist.

And I want to say something that's very important. The State Department of the United States was asked by all of the witnesses today, from the Congress, and myself on numerous occasions to testify, to send anybody here to testify. And Madeline Albright and the State Department chose to ignore us. Mr. Campbell, Mr. Weldon, myself, and many others on both the Democrat and Republican sides have written to the administration and to the State Department on numerous occasions. They will not even respond about this subject and I think that's deplorable.

If there's a threat to the United States because of hidden sites, then by golly the State Department ought to be telling us what they're doing to deal with that problem and they're not even answering Members of Congress. And I intend to force them to come before the Congress if they don't start responding very quickly, and I'll do that by subpoenaing them.

My colleagues, Congressman Weldon and Congressman Campbell, also have tried to get answers from the administration. They've written to the Defense Department Secretary Cohen and to Secretary Albright and they've also received no response. We've asked the FBI and the CIA to testify here today so we can try to find out what's being done. I wish they could testify in open session because I know there is more and more concern here in California and around the country about these possible sites since these books have been published. However, their testimony is secret. It's classified.

After our first two panels, we'll hear from the FBI and CIA in closed session. Right now, the security people are sweeping an adjoining room so we can go in there and make sure what is said is kept confidential. I appreciate that our witnesses from these two agencies are here today, and I look forward to hearing their testimony. I also want to say that I really regret that the State Department isn't here. Once again, my staff and everybody else has tried to get them here; and they just jump through hoops to not have to testify.

Madeleine Albright is going to be testifying before the International Relations Committee in about 2 weeks. And she will answer questions about these issues, or she'll have to duck them in public. Congressman Weldon has worked harder on this issue than anyone in Congress. Congressman Campbell has been working very hard to get answers from the administration on behalf of California and his constituents. And I congratulate both of you for being here and for your hard work.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today including Mr. DeSarno from the FBI. Mr. DeSarno testified before our committee back in 1998 when he was working on the campaign fundraising task force. He was very forthright then. I'm sure he'll be forthright today. He's a good man. We welcome him back. So we're glad to have him. And we're welcoming also Dr. William Green from Cal State University in San Bernadino who is an expert on Russia and United States policy. I look forward to hearing from all of you.

I want to say one more thing. Congressman Waxman who represents this area couldn't be with us today. He said he had a previous commitment. Because this issue is important, I'm disappointed that he couldn't be here. I hope that he'll take a hard look at the issues that are going to be raised today because not only do they concern all of California but in particular since Los Angeles is such a huge population area and he represents a large part of that, he should be very concerned about it. And I'm sure once he hears all these issues, he will be more concerned. He does have one of his chief staff lieutenants here, and we appreciate his presence.

And with that, my colleague from Florida, who flew all the way out here, I appreciate him being here.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6968.004

Mr. Burton. Do you have an opening statement, Mr. Scarborough? Mr. Scarborough. No. I'll just be brief, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. I certainly thank Congressman Campbell for being here and the leadership he's shown in this very important issue, not only to all Americans but again to California specifically. I think of all the people that have come before our committees and I think of all the people that have come before the Armed Services Committee, of which I'm also a member, I think most everybody understands that the battles of the 21st century will not be fought on battlefields in Europe or in Asia but for Americans, we may find them being fought here at home. And certainly if that's the case, then California, specifically Los Angeles, CA, will be on the front lines in battles that involve terrorism, be it nuclear, chemical, or biological. That's why again I thank you for your leadership.

I've got to echo the sentiments of our chairman that I believe unfortunately we have a President, we have a State Department, and we have a foreign policy apparatus in Washington and on both sides of the United States both Republicans and Democrats that do not understand the scope of the danger facing all Americans. And a great example is again Dr. Pry's book, ``War Scare.'' In it he tells a very, very interesting story.

And I think it's very telling about how the administration right now has been lulled to sleep by the hope that somehow the Russians have changed. It's sort of--it's not the new Nixon; it's the new Russians. And that somehow they've undergone this remarkable transformation. And there's a story in here how in 1996 while NATO was conducting military exercises in the North Sea, the Russians were so alarmed that they got their northern fleet out. It was a very confrontational moment in American history and in Russian history. At the same time, Brothers to the Rescue planes were shot down by Cuba.

And so in the middle of this great international crisis, the White House picked up the red phone to speak to the Russians and to try to defuse this situation. But what were they talking about? They were talking about poultry exports. It seems that the Russians were concerned by the fact that these maneuvers were going on and they did a lot of different things, but the only thing that caught the White House's attention was that poultry exports from Russia to America would be cut and likewise going the other way because of Tyson Foods poultry plants in Arkansas.

So they were focusing on chickens and using the red phone for this chicken crisis instead of understanding that the two countries were really on the brink of some very dangerous, dangerous times. And that continues. But, again, the State Department isn't focused. The White House isn't focused on it. They're only concerned about economic considerations while foreign policy considerations have been thrown out the window.

The cold war as we knew it from 1947 to 1991 may be over, but we are now in a period that's even more volatile and more frightening. And Curt Weldon has been a champion on this issue for some time. I was at a meeting with him earlier this month.

Again, I think what's telling is that we have interesting information from Dr. Pry's book and others, a lot of what you're going to be hearing from Curt Weldon and others isn't just from American scholars or American researchers, it actually comes from Russians themselves. As Curt Weldon says, from the mouths of Russians themselves. So we are in a frightening time.

And, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for conducting this hearing. I think it's very important. And I hope for the safety of citizens in Los Angeles and California and across this country that our administration and that Democrats and Republicans in Washington, DC, will start to focus on the very real threat that's being posed right now by mere anarchic conditions in Russia. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. CURT WELDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

20/20 interviewed Lebed; they interviewed me and both of us with a lead story in September 1997 on the national media where he again said in his own words, that Russia had, in fact, produced these small atomic demolition munitions and could not account for all of them.

What was the response of the Russian Government? They
denied they ever produced them. The minister of foreign affairs for Russia publicly said Lebed is crazy; he doesn't know what he's talking about; he's trying to gain popularity. But even worse than that, Mr. Chairman, was that at a press conference in the Pentagon reflecting what I just talked about with this administration the question was asked of Ken Bacon's staff what do you make of the allegations by Lebed. And this was the response of our government: We have no reason to doubt what the Russian Government is saying.

So then, Mr. Chairman, on October 2, 1997, I brought over Dr. Alexei Yablikov. Dr. Yablikov is one of the most reknown environmentalists in all of Russia. He was initially part of Yeltsin's cabinet; was a member of the security council; and is an expert on environmental issues, ecological issues, and atomic energy issues. He heads a think tank. He's a member of the Academy of Sciences in Moscow today.

I had Alexei Yablikov testify before my committee open
session in Washington. And this is what he said. He said, I
know that General Lebed was correct. These devices were built. He said on the record--and you can check the transcript--he said I know colleagues of mine who worked on these devices. And you need to understand, America, he didn't just build these for the Ministry of Defense, they also built these for the KGB to be used for external operations.

So now I have a retired two star general given the highest award that Russia gives, the Hero of Russia award, supported by Dr. Alexei Yablikov saying publicly that Russia has, in fact, built these devices and that we better work with Russia to find out where they are and if, in fact, they're capable of being sold abroad.

Mr. Chairman, even though our government denied that they should pursue this issue, I traveled to Moscow that December and, as I frequently do, met with the defense ministers of Russia, Defense Minister Sergeyev, also a retired general. For the first half hour of my meeting, I talked about positive proactive things that I was doing to help Russia, to help the people, to help the military with housing, to help the problem of nuclear waste. And then I said, but General, for you to continue to have me help you and be Russia's friend you have to be candid with me. What's the story of the small atomic demolition munitions. This is what the defense minister from Russia said to me: ``Congressman, we did build those devices just as you built them during the cold war. We are aware that you destroyed all of yours. And I submit to you that we will have all of our small atomic demolition munitions destroyed by the year 2000.''

So here we have a Russian general saying that they were
lost or not being able to be accounted for, we have a leading environmental activist from Russia verifying his story, and we have our government publicly going along with the Russian Government's total denial they had ever built them.

And finally the defense ministry of Russia admitted to me publicly, yes we built them and yes, we'll have them all
destroyed by this year.

The two of them testified before my committee,
Mr. Chairman. And what did they say? They said in the Mitrokhin
files one of the things Mitrokhin documented was a deliberate
plan by the KGB to preposition military caches of weapons,
hardware, and devices in Europe and in North America. These
devices were intended to be used by agents who would be
prepositioned in our country to blow up dams, bridges, ports,
to cause significant unrest inside of our territory.
When I asked Dr. Andrew whether or not there were specific
sites named in the United States, he said Mitrokhin only had
time to take notes on a sampling of the kinds of cases the KGB
was working on. And he said he wasn't interested in documenting
every single location of every single device that the KGB had
put forward. Because there are literally hundreds of them all
over the world. He did document four sites so that no one could
question the authenticity of what he was saying, it just
happens that one of those sites was in Switzerland and three
were in Belgium.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, the Swiss went to the exact site
that he identified, there are photographs of that site in this
book and right there at the exact spot with a booby-trapped
bomb that could kill a human being and, in fact, caused the
Swiss Government to issue a warning to all of its citizens
about that type of location, they found exactly what Mitrokhin
said would be there. Devices that the Russians had
prepositioned during the Soviet era.
In Belgium, at all three sites the Belgium intelligence
service found the exact same kinds of capability. Now, were
there weapons of mass destruction there? No. Were there
military hardware and transmission and communications
equipment? Yes. Were they booby trapped? The one in
Switzerland, yes.
In the Mitrokhin files, he documents that there are States
in the United States where these devices were prepositioned.
Specifically mentioned in the files are California,
Pennsylvania, New York, Montana, Minnesota, Texas. And he
further states that they are near pipelines. They are near
ports. They are near major public infrastructure locations. All
of this is in the KGB files. Now, this is not the main content
of this book. Because the KGB files were expansive. Only a very
small portion of this book dealt with the location of these
devices. So for those who say come forward and give us one, we
can't. But when I had Dr. Andrew who's, by the way, a Russian
security and intelligence expert at Cambridge, one of the
leading tenured professors at Cambridge University so much so
that when Mitrokhin received his ability to live in England by
the British intelligence service and the British Government,
they went to Cambridge and they went to Dr. Andrew and they
said would you work with Mitrokhin and help to prepare these
files in an organized way. That's why the book came out.
So the British intelligence trusted Christopher Andrew to
work Mitrokhin. When Mitrokhin--or when Christopher Andrew and
Gordievsky testified before my committee, again this is in the
public record, they said that there is no doubt in their mind
that there are locations today, no doubt in their minds, all
over the United States, where Soviet military equipment is
stored today. No doubt. Now, they didn't say that there is a
high degree of probability of a nuclear device, but they left
the door open. They left the door open. In fact, I'll submit
the transcript which refers to that for the record which people
can look at in the words again of a Russian, Mitrokhin--I mean
Gordievsky and Mitrokhin and Dr. Christopher Andrew.

Curt Weldon to Director Freeh and a team from the FBI: "I want to ask you the question, one, do you consider the Mitrokhin files to be credible". And they said, absolutely.
They are totally credible.
So anyone that would say this is some outlandish claim
that's not been verified, I would ask them to talk to the FBI
about that and the SIS service in Great Britain.
No. 2, I said, have you attempted to find devices where the
States and sites are listed even though it's vague and they
said, yes, but we don't have much to go on. You know, there are
thousands of miles of pipeline in Texas. There are tons of
ports installations in California. We just don't know where to
look without the specific locations.
So then I got to the third question: Has our government
asked the Russian Government for the specific locations? And
the answer was no, our government has not asked the Russian
Government.
Now, Mr. Chairman, also for the record I would like to
submit a transcript of a press conference held at the Pentagon
on September 15, 1999. In this transcript I'm going to quote
Admiral Quigley--Rear Admiral Quigley is being asked questions
by the media about the Mitrokhin files, about the claims in it.
Admiral Quigley is asked if he's aware of the book and the
allegations. He says, yes, we're aware of it. They said, do you
have any interest in actually going after some of these caches?
He says not that I'm aware of, no. Have you approached the
Russians on this, about whether or not they've done this? His
answer, no, no we have not.

Mr. Weldon. So in the public domain now we have two Federal
agencies, the Defense Department and the FBI stating that this
administration--and I don't think it should be the
responsibility of the FBI or the Defense Department to ask the
Russians, but both of them saying publicly, this administration
hasn't asked the question.
Mr. Chairman, on January--or on October 22, and you have
this in your files, I drafted a letter which was signed by
myself and Jim Oberstar. Jim Oberstar is not exactly considered
a wacko Member of the Congress. He is one of the most stable
Democrats in the House. He's the ranking Democrat on the public
works committee. Jim Oberstar and I signed this letter to
Madeleine Albright saying have you asked the question of the
Russians; and if you did, what was the response; and if you
haven't asked the question, why haven't you. Today is January,
what, the 22nd. No response from the administration, Mr.
Chairman. Nothing.
Mr. Chairman, also in October of last year, I introduced
legislation. And I just didn't go get Republican sponsors, Mr.
Chairman, my bill which is H. Res. 380 which I have before you
has 16 Republican sponsors and 16 Democrat sponsors. This is a
bipartisan effort. And if any Member of Congress attempts to
say this is partisan, or if the media tries to spin this as
partisan I will refute it every step of the way. Sixteen
Democrats and 16 Republicans cosponsored this bill, demanding
that this administration come clean with the American people.
Mr. Chairman, up until this date we have no new
information. Nothing. We have the State Department silent with
their lips closed. My own hunch is when the FBI was told by the
SIS back in 1992 and 1993 about the Mitrokhin files, Yeltsin
was on the rise. All of us wanted Yeltsin to succeed. But this
administration because of its special focus on Yeltsin and
Clinton didn't want anything to surface that would perhaps call
into question Yeltsin's leadership or what Soviet and Russia's
intents were. So we didn't ask the question. And now 8 years
later, they are between a rock and a hard place. In my opinion,
my best guess is they didn't ask the question then, they
haven't asked the question, and they're embarrassed to come
forward and admit that today.

If the Russians planted "suitcase nukes" in America during the cold war, they're now useless due to the nuclear components decaying. Additionally, leaving nukes lying around where Billy-Bob and his buddy Clem can find them is a pretty stupid idea.

BTW, I note that you never did answer my question regarding Stanislav Lunev: is this the same guy who claims to have access to the inermost discussions of the Russian government--discussions that took place well AFTER his defection?

13
posted on 03/12/2003 5:06:06 AM PST
by Poohbah
(Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)

I'm saying that there is reason to believe that he is pulling some of this stuff out of his alimentary canal and trading on his puported inside knowledge.

Russia does have the capability of doing major damage to the United States--that has never been in dispute. The question is whether they have the intention of doing so at this time. Right now, there is more of a natural alliance--one based on common geopolitical interests--between the US and Russia than there is between the US and France or Germany.

16
posted on 03/12/2003 5:46:11 AM PST
by Poohbah
(Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)

Um.....not to sound snotty...but Russia's interest has always been to divide the US from Europe...why wouldn't Russia capitalize on this opportunity by siding with France?? and Germany??
And...don't look now...but that's what's happening...John.

And the investigation above is not just relying on Lunev. See the Russian Defense Ministers collaborated.

As for the conditions of material that may or may not be here. I have no idea. I don't know a thing about weaponery nor does it offer any information on what conditions these drop places are in maintaining them.

Mitrokhin himself said that the drops are NOT being maintained. One problem is that the Russians LOST most of the drop sites--when they sent agents around to check on their condition or update the equipment, they literally couldn't find the drop, usually because they couldn't find the reference landmarks.

19
posted on 03/12/2003 6:01:37 AM PST
by Poohbah
(Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)

"Um.....not to sound snotty...but Russia's interest has always been to divide the US from Europe...why wouldn't Russia capitalize on this opportunity by siding with France?? and Germany??
And...don't look now...but that's what's happening...John."

First, Putin is saying one thing, and Ivanov is saying something else. There is some extreme question as to what side Russia's on.

Second, if they opt to side with the Euro-peons, then they're siding with the same people they're fighting in Chechnya. Russians may be crazy, but they ain't stupid.

20
posted on 03/12/2003 6:03:56 AM PST
by Poohbah
(Beware the fury of a patient man -- John Dryden)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.